America Sings

For the dreamers
The believers
The hard workers
The thinkers

All singing together
All working together
But never alike
Never thinking as one

Union without unity
And justice for all
Never think alike
But believe together

Believe in the foundation
Believe in the system
For all of us singing
America is home

Puritans in 21st Century America

After reading the article from The New York Times, I can see the Puritan beliefs in America. However, being Catholic and Objectivist (an odd combination to say the least) I have a unique view of this country when compared to my classmates. The article discussed hard work still being a value in today's society, but I don't see it as on. When I am on the job, I work hard all of the time, no phones, socializing, or distractions, but when I go to a place where any one of my friends work, they are on their phones and doing their best to do as little amount of work as possible. "[H]ard work and good deeds would bring rewards, in life and after." This sentence has a negative feel amongst many of the citizens of this nation who truly believe that no matter how hard they work, they will never reach the top of the social ladder in today's society. I don't mean to generalize, but those are typically the far left wingers.

"The psychologist Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks has found that Protestants — but not Catholics — become less sensitive to others’ emotions when reminded of work, possibly indicating a tendency to judge fraternizing as unproductive and unprofessional." This is an odd bit of information, and I agree with it, partially. In my experience, the Protestants that I have worked with socialized more than the Catholics. The Catholics, including myself, who I have had encounters with, were raised on the basis of hard work. My grandparents, for instance, were raised on a farm, and then proceeded to own the farm and work the farm for their whole lives. The days were long, 4am to 11pm, with no time off, except on Sunday for church, a few miles away (7 to be exact), which they walked to. That is why I disagree with this, but on the other hand, the Catholics I have worked with all believed that strong ties in the workplace were a key to a successful business venture. I encounter this every day, my coworkers won't socialize on the job, but afterwards they always go out together.

The paragraph summarizing the study about the High School Prom being canceled was, in my eyes, skewed. American high school students would be completely against canceling the prom, while Asians (again I am generalizing and I am sorry) hold more strict traditional family values and would want the prom canceled. I don't know under what constraints the study was conducted, but I believe it offers a skewed view of the way Americans perceive their lives.

To bring forth the manifesto in this post, I would conclude that America is not as Puritan as it should be. Obviously I believe it should be more Catholic, but the religions are surprisingly similar, so Puritan is fine by me. That is from a "values" standpoint, not a religion standpoint. I am an advocate of the freedom of religion, but I feel we could all use a bit more of a dosage of hard work. If we would all work our hardest to be the best that we can be, we would have a lot more success as a nation, a lot less fun, but a lot more success. Hard work is the basis of Objectivism, which is very similar to the values that modern day conservatives hold.

Early Maps That Shape America

Maps dictate the way early settlers viewed the world. Analysing old maps sheds light on the Discourse of the pre-national days of the USA.

1st map:
A New Description of Carolina
By John Speed

http://hmap.libs.uga.edu/hmap/view?docId=hmap/hmap1676s6.xml;query=;brand=default

1) This map is a very interesting map because of the orientation of it. North faces in the direction most modern maps have east. Being from 1676 there are some notable differences from our current maps; however, the map is surprisingly accurate. The Appalachian Mountains are a notable improvement from other maps I looked at. In A New Description of Carolina they are relatively close to their actual location. If we zoom in very close to what appears to be a road, we can see people carrying something. Only one person is different from the rest, which is interesting. We can also see fortified villages and towns that the people are traveling to and from. There is only one animal that I can make out, and that is a male deer drawn very small in the middle of some open land. The angle on the map description is holding a fishing rod, and I think that the people walking were carrying fishing rods as well. There is also a dot that would be used to show a village, without a name. Only one, every other dot has a name.

2) This map portrays America as a relatively open land, occupied by very little to nothing at all. The mapmaker illustrated the openness by putting in a large savanna just before the mountains. In other maps of this area, we can see the native people or animals, but not in this piece. It gives a sense that they were just utilizing an open area that nobody else was using. This provides a false sense of righteousness in the "manifest destiny" mindset of the time period. It is interesting compared to other maps, because it does not show any inclination that the land shown was ever inhabited by anyone other than Europeans.

First Words as the President

As Americans are always struggling to feel a sense of unity, it would make sense to see a word linked with that topic used excessively. And, indeed, there is such a word: "Nation"

Only one inaugural address has ever been made without at least one meantion of the word "nation," and that was George Washington's second address. Washington used it in his first address, so it isn't that important that he left it out in his second, the nation already knew what to expect from him. I think it is interesting, though, that he didn't use the phrase "this great nation" or the equivilant. That would be accurate of his speaking and writing style.

This word is a good example of the type of speeches that are now given. John Adams and Harry Truman used the word nation the most. An interesting observation is that they both followed presidents that were loved by the American people. John Adams followed George Washington, and Harry Truman followed FDR. It makes sense that they would want to assure the nation that they still believed in the same values as the previous president, and although they may be different, if the nation pulls together, we can make it through.

The use of the word nation is increasing as general trend since Grover Cleveland. Sometimes it goes down again, but as a general trend, every president after Grover Cleveland has used nation more than the president before. Even Barack Obama used nation more than any other word in his 2009 speech.

Analysis of The Opening Scene of "Apocalypse Now"

The powerful opening scene of the film Apocalypse Now is a masterpiece of symbolism. Symbolism is used as the main film strategy in Francis Ford Coppola's film about the Vietnam War. The opening scene is a symbol for the whole war itself. It starts out with a still camera shot of a beautiful jungle, from Vietnam, symbolizing the way Vietnam was before U.S. troops entered the country. Then an Apache helicopter flew past, kicking up dust, disturbing the perfect jungle scene. That symbolizes the first advisers we sent to Vietnam and the splitting of the country, the brewing of trouble that we created. The dust floats in the air for awhile, then a second helicopter flies past, followed by an air strike, completely obliterating the lush jungle scape. This symbolizes the Americans engaging in open war with the North Vietnamese. The jungle, which symbolizes the country, was completely destroyed by the attack, and the country left burning.
This strategy is very effective, both on the surface level, and as the viewer delves deeper. For the symbols used also symbolize the U.S. troops, and the impact the war had on them. This is very effective because it sets the scene for the rest of the film. The main character appears upside-down, which symbolizes the way he feels about the war. He is laying in bed, surrounded by alcohol, tobacco and a gun. Symbols each on their own.
The symbols used in the opening scene of the film are very effective as a strategy for setting the scene of the Vietnam War. They come across as very powerful, seemingly normal war events, but represent a greater tragedy.

Cochlear Implants

Ever since science advanced to the point of being able to correct "imperfections" in the human body, man has debated amongst itself the morality of changing God's creation, even if it is to improve it. In recent years, science and medicine has discovered a way to give hearing to those who have been born without it. Sound and Fury explores two different situations in order to determine the ethical issues involved with changing the human body. Two children, cousins, both born deaf, are faced with the issue of whether or not to go through a cochlear implant. The documentary focuses on the different occasions when it is appropriate to do the procedure, and when it is inappropriate. Just as all ethics must, it comes down to individual situations.

Discourse is a huge part of many viewpoints on this issue. I feel that as an outsider, with no experience one way or the other, I can provide an unbiased assessment of the morality of a cochlear implant. I am not a part of the deaf Discourse, but I don't have a deaf relative or friend. I am able to speak as a person who can view both sides; because, I have no emotional attachment to either.

Peter and Nita Artinian were both born deaf. They haven't known the "hearing world" as they refer to it, and that was not their choice. In Heather's case, I feel that it should be up to Heather. It is only natural that Heather, being a five year old, would ask her parents for help deciding one way or the other. Her parents decided that an implant was not right for Heather. I agree. Heather was born into a deaf family, as a member of a deaf society, and deeply entrenched in "deaf culture." If she would have had the implant, she would be an outcast, just as Peter was when he was a child. Peter's mom, unfortunately, is wrong. She is also being very selfish, very selfish. She wants to be able to converse with her granddaughter, but that is not the whole story. She is afraid that other people will look at her family and condemn them for the choice they made. She wants Heather to have the implant for her own reasons, not in Heather's best interest, as she claims. Peter and Nita made the right choice for Heather. They gave her acceptance into the culture of which she was born, they did not strip it away.

Now if Heather had wanted the implant, even at that young age, it would be wrong for the parents to deny her. But she didn't want it. She may have had an infatuation with the thought of being able to hear, but in the end she really didn't want to change the way God made her. So it was right for the parents not to force it on her.

Chris and Mari Artinian are hearing, their first born is hearing. When they had twins, one was hearing and one wasn't. This situation is much easier to assess than the last one. Peter, the deaf twin, would be an outcast from the family. Maybe not a direct outcast, but he would be different. He would have had to wait a long, long, long time to come up with a reason that he was born deaf and his twin brother wasn't. He was determined to be an ideal candidate for the implant, but he definitely wasn't old enough to decide for himself. His parents decided that he should have an implant. It is unclear in the documentary if it is for selfish reasons, but it is irrelevant. He will now be accepted into the culture that he was born into, instead of being different. If he was born deaf, his opportunities would have been limited; because, both of his parents were hearing, and his school is hearing. His parents don't know the best way to teach a deaf child, they won't be able to teach him fluent sign language right from the start. This is not because they aren't intelligent, it is because they are not a part of the deaf Discourse. Peter will now have just as much opportunity as his brother to succeed.

Now if Peter had been born into a completely deaf family, it would have been right for the family to leave him the way he was, unless he wanted it when he was older. If the parents felt that they could afford to give him the best speech education available and send him to the best schools, and both the parents were deaf, then it would have been appropriate to give him the implant.

It all comes down to Discourse.

Fear of Flying

I slowly walk into the plane, a big aluminum tube, nothing more than a thin sheet of metal between the atmosphere and helpless passengers. The captains are already locked in their cockpit, immune to influence. Warily, I glance around, looking for a weakness, looking for a failure. Carefully I sit, choosing to locate myself closest to the emergency exit. The door closes; a stewardess locks it in place. Now it is the worst, I need out, I need control. Trust needs to be placed in the pilots, and I cannot. I cannot fasten the seat belt, sealing my certain doom. Fear, like a monster in the deep, clawing to get to the surface, I suppress it, with difficulty. I fail. Fear takes control, for I cannot.

They say flying is safer than driving, but I will always prefer to grasp the future with two hands, steering myself through every obstacle. They say flying is romantic, but I prefer roses and wine. They say flying is faster, easier, cheaper, but I prefer to gaze at the gauges of my own machine, fill the fuel tank myself, tilt the throttle body ever so slightly to speed up. I will not listen to Them, even though They may be right. I fear flying. I fear giving up control to a couple of complacent captains who have never met me. It is not death I fear, it is dying because of someone else's hand. If I am the one to make the final, fatal mistake, so be it. I can assume responsibility, but I cannot trust the responsibility to anyone else.